AGM114L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2415 times:
Reading the article it seems China wants to build a space station, perform a spacewalk and a trip to the moon.
I think all space exploration is good but I would really hate to see control of the galaxy fall into the hands of the Chinese.
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2407 times:
Quoting AGM114L (Reply 1): Reading the article it seems China wants to build a space station, perform a spacewalk and a trip to the moon.
I think all space exploration is good but I would really hate to see control of the galaxy fall into the hands of the Chinese.
I'm probably going to get flamed heavily for this but...
In the spirit of the old saying "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". I think it would be a smart move if all the spacefaring nations went back to the moon together. It would cheaper, no one would be wondering what the other guy was doing up there, it most likely get wide international support, etc....
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2406 times:
Quoting SATL382G (Reply 2): I'm probably going to get flamed heavily for this but...
Flamed for making sense?
If a joint venture can help ensure stability of the relations across the board I think it's stupid NOT to attempt. Besides, who wants to be the only nation dumb enough to pay for going to the moon itself 2X?
Oh, that's right this is A.net..... Now all we need is Wayfarer to post us a map of Taiwan, and RSmith to rise from the dead and tell us it's Bush's fault.
Alberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2685 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2312 times:
[quote=AGM114L,reply=1]I would really hate to see control of the galaxy fall into the hands of the Chinese.[/quote
oh you have got to be kidding me.........
your lucky there's few chinese members on this forum.........
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2312 times:
>> I think all space exploration is good but I would really hate to see control of the galaxy fall into the hands of the Chinese.
I think you're getting a little ahead of yourselves. In my opinion, a bit of the Chinese space hype is a combination of two factors:
1. It comes at a time when NASA is struggling to return to flight
2. It comes at a time when China is increasing their economic and export might
We could go on and on about the geopolitical implications of point 2, but let's not forget that NASA is by far the most successful space exploration agency to date. The fact that NASA is looking beyond the aging Shuttle and toward exploration beyond Earth orbit is a good indication that "control of the galaxy" is in no danger of being "lost."
This only the second time China has prepared to launch an orbital payload. They have far more to demonstrate before lunar missions, space stations, etc.
>> It would cheaper, no one would be wondering what the other guy was doing up there, it most likely get wide international support, etc....
Well no offense to the Russian space program, but the Chinese would likely be much better partners. I don't want to hear the balognia about Russia having "off the shelf hardware that could take us to the Moon and Mars tommorow," remember all that cash we had to provide so they could build the ISS service module?
NASA embraces international cooperation with open arms, but I would question if the Chinese are interested in being our partner? Their space program does seem to have a tinge of nationalistic go-China-go stuff, and if you're making a bid for superpower status (does anyone think they are doing space exploration for the sake of science?) it doesn't compute to team-up with the only remaining superpower.
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2309 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8): This only the second time China has prepared to launch an orbital payload. They have far more to demonstrate before lunar missions, space stations, etc.
Surely a typo, but if not.... China has launched a number of orbital payloads, far more than two certainly. This is the second manned orbital flight however.
China has borrowed heavily from the Russian manned space program to make the progress that they have. As result they are catching much more quickly than if they had developed the technology themselves, I see no reason for them to deviate from this path.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8): Their space program does seem to have a tinge of nationalistic go-China-go stuff, and if you're making a bid for superpower status (does anyone think they are doing space exploration for the sake of science?) it doesn't compute to team-up with the only remaining superpower.
Unless you want to keep a real close eye on what the other guy is doing..
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2305 times:
>> Surely a typo, but if not.... China has launched a number of orbital payloads, far more than two certainly.
Not a typo. Context
We aren't talking about China's unmanned opperations, so what bearing does it have on the context of what I wrote?
>> China has borrowed heavily from the Russian manned space program to make the progress that they have
This is true of some of their propulsion systems, but much of their manned programs is, in fact, indigenous. Any configuration resemblence with Soyuz is coincidince, the vehicle was designed with very little Russian influence.
Their vehicle (name escaping me for the moment) appears to be very capable and versatile, so I fully expect they have some long-term ambitions. What they have yet to demonstrate is true heavy-lift capability for station-building, etc.
>> Unless you want to keep a real close eye on what the other guy is doing..
Given that NASA is a highly open and transparent organization, shouldn't be much of a problem. NASA is anything but a clandestine, if the Chinese government wanted to know exactly what NASA was doing, they probably wouldn't even need to insert an agent to do so...
NASA is more than giddy to disclose their long-term plans, upcoming missions, current research, etc. The secret stuff is done by the DoD and contractors.
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2301 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10): We aren't talking about China's unmanned opperations, so what bearing does it have on the context of what I wrote?
We aren't talking about China's unmanned operations but it sure looks like you were when you wrote:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8): This only the second time China has prepared to launch an orbital payload.
Which is untrue.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10): Given that NASA is a highly open and transparent organization, shouldn't be much of a problem. NASA is anything but a clandestine, if the Chinese government wanted to know exactly what NASA was doing, they probably wouldn't even need to insert an agent to do so...
NASA is fully capable of operating in a clandestine environment when it needs to. I think it grates with NASA when they have to do it but they are capable.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2246 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8): We could go on and on about the geopolitical implications of point 2, but let's not forget that NASA is by far the most successful space exploration agency to date. The fact that NASA is looking beyond the aging Shuttle and toward exploration beyond Earth orbit is a good indication that "control of the galaxy" is in no danger of being "lost."
Anybody can throw money at a problem and do a few stunts. That is what counts for success in the world of politics and government. However.....
In the real world, success is not only determined by what you do but by how long you take to do it and how much money you have used to do it. Killing as few people as possible in the process also counts. Measured by these standards, NASA's manned program is a miserable failure. It will continue to be a failure until it gets significant competition.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, RR: 80 Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2173 times:
Maybe it was the need to move beyond Shuttle with a definite plan for not only retiring it, but have something beyond LEO, after the Columbia loss, that lead to the current plans to go back to the Moon etc.
But I cannot help noting that just a few months before this goal was very publicly announced by GWB, China had launched it's first manned craft.
Maybe Bush wanted his spaceflight monument, but maybe his advisors were also saying "China could be on the Moon in 20 years, are we happy with that?"
That's not an objection, far from it, while NASA has embraced international programes, going right back to the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz flight, later the European Spacelab and astronauts on the Shuttle, to the forced one with ISS, (co-operate with Russia or no space station), to the necessary link ups with Mir to prepare for ISS, but for all that, I don't see major co-operation with China happening in the foreseeable future.
Apart from anything else, for all it's problems, Russia has a vast reservoir of experience in long duration orbital missions, far outstripping NASA in this respect, co-operating with them is not only about smart geopolitics.
It took the Cold War to get to the Moon, not ideal, but that's how things are in this world, Columbus did not set out on his voyages out of pure exploration and altruistic motives.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2123 times:
Maybe it was the need to move beyond Shuttle with a definite plan for not only retiring it, but have something beyond LEO, after the Columbia loss, that lead to the current plans to go back to the Moon etc.
But I cannot help noting that just a few months before this goal was very publicly announced by GWB, China had launched it's first manned craft.
-----
Agreed. The agency to have something in the cooker just in case China tries to do something spectacular - something that would also justify the huge beauraucratic empire NASA currently posseses. The agency also is afraid the private sector will have their own space station, built for far less money, even before the Chinese. It would be more of a hotel then a research lab, which is a lot easier to do, but the public would not know the difference. Heck, there may not ever be much of a difference if NASA and its partners can't ever get more than 3 people on the station. Right now the station cannot even support one full time researcher. Even when they had 3 people up there, mostly they just maintained the station.
Another reason we want to go to the Moon and Mars is because it is worth dying for. Casualties are expected when you do new things. But with the shuttle we lost more people just going to low earth orbit then we were loosing when we were racing to the moon with 60's technology. If some astronauts die preparing to go to Mars, the public will understand. They do not understand, however, when people die just to keep the ancient white elephent we call the shuttle operating - in effect, just to be able to say we are in space and to keep NASA's army employed. The administration is just starting to get this across to NASA.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9): Given that NASA is a highly open and transparent organization, shouldn't be much of a problem. NASA is anything but a clandestine, if the Chinese government wanted to know exactly what NASA was doing, they probably wouldn't even need to insert an agent to do so...
Well...... check out Kieth Cowing's Nasa Watch website if you believe this to be true. Or check out James Ohberg's website as well. Read James' Ohberg's book "Dragonfly". "Dragonfly" was written BEFORE the Colombia accident. It pointed to safety related coverups in the Shuttle and Mir programs, and a lack of candor by NASA management on a wide variety of issues. It is hard to believe just how F-d up everything was when we were going to Mir and starting the ISS. This was at a time when NASA was trying to make it look like everything was going great. NASA is very open about how it does things technically, but it is as secretive as other government agencies when it comes to potentially embarrasing disclosures.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1950 times:
Quoting AGM114L (Reply 1): Reading the article it seems China wants to build a space station, perform a spacewalk and a trip to the moon.
I think all space exploration is good but I would really hate to see control of the galaxy fall into the hands of the Chinese.
Don't panic. The Chinese are long on promises and infamously slow at carrying them out. They're manned space program was "launching its first man in a year or two" in the popular media from about 1985 onward, until they finally did it in 2003. They are very, very far from landing men on the moon (and anything less is just a stunt) especially given that there is no Russian hardware they can license build (a'la Shenzou) to speed things along.
China might eventually join the International Space Station project, but neither they nor the ISS partners seem interested in that at this time.
Quoting SATL382G (Reply 2): In the spirit of the old saying "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". I think it would be a smart move if all the spacefaring nations went back to the moon together. It would cheaper, no one would be wondering what the other guy was doing up there, it most likely get wide international support, etc....
I share the sentiment, but the facts obliterate your argument. The International Space Station's cost rose... dramatically... after the Russians were brought in (from $18 Billion to $30 Billion not including the Shuttle launches needed to build it). This despite the fact that the Russians were brought in to reduce costs to the US. There is simply no support for the contention that international participation reduces costs, and tons of data showing the opposite effect.
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1945 times:
Quoting Thorny (Reply 16): I share the sentiment, but the facts obliterate your argument. The International Space Station's cost rose... dramatically... after the Russians were brought in (from $18 Billion to $30 Billion not including the Shuttle launches needed to build it). This despite the fact that the Russians were brought in to reduce costs to the US. There is simply no support for the contention that international participation reduces costs, and tons of data showing the opposite effect.
Anyone who believes the Russians were brought into ISS to reduce costs probably thinks we sent Apollo to the Moon to do science. It just isn't so.
The Russians were brought into ISS to keep their aerospace factories and engineers busy doing something we could keep an eye on. That we could say it was an "International" space station was simply a beneficial side effect.
I think we should keep an eye on the Chinese manned program, taking them along to the moon is one way to do it.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1942 times:
Quoting SATL382G (Reply 17): Anyone who believes the Russians were brought into ISS to reduce costs probably thinks we sent Apollo to the Moon to do science. It just isn't so.
True, but irrelevant. If international participation reduces costs, why did ISS's cost go up spectacularly when more international partners were brought in?
We might be able to do better with Moon/Mars if we make it truly international from the very beginning, and not make it a kludge (ISS is a merger of the US Space Station Freedom and Russia's Mir 2) but the evidence so far is not at all convincing.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1865 times:
Quoting SATL382G (Reply 17): Anyone who believes the Russians were brought into ISS to reduce costs probably thinks we sent Apollo to the Moon to do science. It just isn't so.
It may not have been done in order to reduce costs, but it sure was sold that way to congress and the public.
It wouldn't really sell for NASA to say- "We want to make sure our program is never canceled no matter how badly it goes. One way we'd like to do this is make binding commitments to our international partners. Also, we want to rely on the shuttle. Having the Soyuz as safty backup would let us do that. We don't want to build any new spacecraft in the foreseeable future."
Nor could the politicians say - "We would also like to give some aid to the Russians so they can keep their scientists employed and to prop up their egos by keeping their space program alive. We also like the warm, fuzzy Barny-like feeling of working with our former enemies. It would look bad if we actually labeled it as foreign aid, so lets raid NASA's budget instead. "
So instead they used the cost argument. If it is now coming back to bite them it is their own doing.
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1860 times:
Quoting Cloudy (Reply 19): So instead they used the cost argument. If it is now coming back to bite them it is their own doing.
Coming back to bite who? NASA was not an advocate of having the Russians in the program until it was explained to them that having the Russians involved was the only way they'd get a program from the Clinton Administration. Then of course NASA was all in favor of the concept.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1844 times:
Quoting SATL382G (Reply 20): Then of course NASA was all in favor of the concept.
Well, to be fair, when the President tells you "this is the way it will be", then it is your job to salute smartly and go do it. Still, there were a lot of grumblings that Space Station should have been paid for by the State Department and not NASA, since it was essentially a foreign affairs program from that point on.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13343 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, 
B4e-Forever New Frontiers 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
